Legal Opinion
Edwards Motor Transit Co. v. Public Utilities Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided July 7, 1982No. 81-1408PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Per curiam
Although appellants propound 12 propositions of law for our consideration, it is evident that the last such proposition is the one most *4vigorously urged by them. This proposition of law states as follows:
“The Transportation Policy Of This State As Expressed In R.C. 4921.03(B) And R.C. 4921.10 Requires That In The Determination Of What Will Serve The Convenience And Needs Of The Public, The Providing Of Competition Is An Important Factor, And It Is Erroneous For The Public Utilities Commission To Refuse To Consider Evidence Of Public Need For Competitive Service In Place Of Monopoly Service.”
Th…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Scioto Valley Ry. & Power Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1926
- Masury Water Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
- Trac. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1926
- Lorain-Amherst Transit, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1947
- Columbus Ry., Power & Light Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1927
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Canton Storage & Transfer Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- Canton Storage & Transfer Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1995